|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2375
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 19:34:54 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Assets are ejected into the asset safety and players will be floating in space in their pods.
As mentioned in the asset safety thread, players should be in their active ship, only if there is no active ship should they be in their pod. There is no good reason to force them out of their active ship simply because they logged out for a day or two and someone scooped the structure. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2376
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 21:32:45 -
[2] - Quote
Absent Sworn wrote: That's only a relevant question if you have a choice between one of these things and a POS. Maybe what you're missing is that you won't.
And there in lies the issue. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 22:24:47 -
[3] - Quote
Ida Aurlien wrote:well i'm not a fan of entoss links.. and this to me sounds like a major mess.. I hope this takes u years to do but probably not.. no time to really play game as allways running to put out fires.. gives u no time to play the game just b a fireman.. other games let u play without having to babysit 24/7 Curious, name other games where you can actually lose structures which you don't have to babysit 24/7. Most of the ones I know don't even have timers and invuln periods. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2377
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 02:03:02 -
[4] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote: If the only use for caps is to kill other caps, there's no incentive to move them anywhere or field them first.
Caps are also very good at both killing & supporting battleships. Which are in theory very good at killing battlecruisers. Who 'should' be good at killing cruisers.
The BC's killing Cruisers is the point where the meta breaks down badly atm and why CCP have mentioned an upcoming BC/BS buff, which once BC & BS get used to escalate vs Cruisers, then naturally causes caps to become part of the escalation cycle around fighting for control of a grid of a citadel. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2381
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 21:54:04 -
[5] - Quote
Maria Kitiare wrote:5 cent
CCP suggests a system where vulnerability windows are decided by the defending group. I donGÇÖt think this system will be used to make vulnerability windows match when you can defend. I see this being used to make the siege as painful as possible for the attacking team, causing them to get tired(like we see it happen all over null sec already). I suggest that structures are always vulnerable, but the defending player should be able to choose at what time of the day, the reinforce timer will end. That way you can still choose when you will be able to defend, but you wonGÇÖt have a system that is gamed with the objective of making your opponent hate him self and the game. You might not even be able to attack a group because their vulnerability timer is in the russian timezone, and you are required to attack in that timezone 3 times on different (work)days.
CCP suggests reinforcement timers that spend over weeks. No. Just no. If you canGÇÖt take down the structure within a 3 day period(a weekend), then there is no use. No one wants to keep hole control for 300+ hours straight. I canGÇÖt ask my players to skip school and work to take part in the most boring gameplay in EVE today(Sitting still, scanning for new sigs while watching a movie) for weeks. If it canGÇÖt be done in a weekend, then evicting will become less happening, which will remove content from W-space. In w-space 1 reinforce timer would be enough, 2 or even 3, would just be irrelevant boring grinding that adds no interesting gameplay. CCP have said that they don't intend these structures to take weeks to shoot down, read the blogs, read CCP's comments and replies already. Exactly how it will work for timers is still a little vague. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2384
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 03:36:51 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote: No that was something left out of this blog, but the time between vulnerability windows will be shorter for the smaller structures, and our rough estimates on this would be a week in total from start to finish. This is something we want a lot of feedback on though, exactly how many hours and the times between cycles.
<---- RTFM, or rather Read the Dev replies. And you won't end up making assumptions. |
|
|
|